• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Boris Asks The Queen to Suspend Parliament

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
Close {arliament for 5 weeks the PM asks so he can exit Brexit. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/boris-johnson-asks-queen-to-suspend-parliament/ar-AAGrDtJ?ocid=spartandhp
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
329
Points
880
You say that as if you are surprized.

It's a Parliamentary Monarchy: She basically has to follow the PM's advice, with etremely rare and quite defined exceptions, which this is not one.
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
I was surprised but I guess she had had advice from others whose advice she trusts.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,068
Points
1,160
tomahawk6 said:
I was surprised but I guess she had had advice from others whose advice she trusts.

"Advice" = what the PM wants the Queen to do in order to advance the agenda of an elected party.  It is the rare occasion and probably one that would trigger a constitutional crisis that the PM's advice would not be followed.  The advice she may receive from others probably amounts to "like it or lump it", do you want to chance the continued existence of the monarchy (or the country) on not following the PM's advice.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,203
Points
1,090
I heard that the Monarch's role is to "Advise, Encourage, or Warn".

So the best she can do and not set off a crisis is to say (in a grandmother like way), "Prime Minister; Boris, are you really sure you want to go down this path?"
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
I read an article that Her Majesty could appoint a new PM. She did this once in 1963 I think. Looks like the manuevering has begun for a no confidence vote. It wasnt enough for the majority of the public to vote for an exit. Now they see an opportunity to thwart the will of the people.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49493632

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/07/could-the-queen-sack-boris-johnson-the-experts-are-divided
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,336
Points
1,060
I think most people in the UK are happy someone actually picked a direction and is going in it, regardless of the direction.
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
346
Points
810
Colin P said:
I think most people in the UK are happy someone actually picked a direction and is going in it, regardless of the direction.

THIS. My British relatives at this point are just sick of Brexit and it constantly being in the news. They just want it done with one way or another.

Personally I am disgusted by the UKs parliament at this point. The fact is they were given a clear mandate by the people, whether or not it is one they wish to carry out. The active attempts to prevent Brexit shows that the people in power have no respect for the citizenry and aren't capable of following orders. Those involved in preventing it should resign as its clear they don't have any respect for the democracy they are supposed to be representing.

Attempts to try and hold another referendum, attempts to try to prevent it from happening, attempts to scuttle and damage negotations with the EU. Disgraceful.
 

observor 69

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3
Points
430
"Following a referendum held on 23 June 2016 in which 51.9 percent of those voting supported leaving the EU"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit

Kinda helps explain the indecision present across the country.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,344
Points
1,040
You can see the full results below plus the regional breakdown; they even have a fancy little graphic. England overall had a thin majority on leave, with Scotland, N. Ireland and Gibraltar all voting to remain. Wales was a bit of a mixed bag, with some remain and some leave areas.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum

The whole thing has been a bit of a disaster; none of the leavers can agree on what they actually want to leave (common market vs separate, freedom of movement vs controlled access etc) and there is basically no permutation that they can all agree on, or are putting forth ludicrous demands to the EU that make no sense.

Additionally, there were a number of issues with the leave campaign playing dirty pool; they've overspent, they told outright lies about what was possible, and then there is the entire 'Cambridge Analytica' affair. There is also a pretty strong undercurrent of nationalism and 'keep the immigrants out' that was part of the campaign, so it's pretty ugly.

Their economy is so completely intertwined with the EU and they are so used to no borders that a no-deal (and the inevitable subsequent border checks when they leave the common market) that it will literally wipe out entire industries in the UK without massive subsidization. For example, something like 90% of the sheep they raise go to the EU, and over 60% of farmer's income currently comes from the EU subsidies. The London financial sector has taken a big hit with all the relocations (which will likely accelerate with a no-deal) and all kinds of manufacturers have announced shut downs as they relocate to the EU so they can keep their supply chain in the common market and avoid intermediate tariffs. Even the stuff that is wholely made in the UK relies heavily on EU products, so there will be an increase across the board in prices. When this is tied with the value of the pound dropping, doesn't take a genius economist to know this will be particularly brutal for anyone that isn't wealthy. Once everything craters it's a great opportunity for anyone with a lot of capitol to buy up assets at rock bottom prices and sit on them for a decade while things recover, but that doesn't help the millions that are just getting by now.

The prorogation really has a lot more to do with pushing a no deal Brexit through then it does politics and the Tories getting re-elected; Johnson's cabal started as an election team and this was kind of their plan all along. If they had kept Parliament in session, probably even odds that nothing much would have changed and they would be at risk of going to the polls without any kind of Brexit, so this way they can force the issue, delay Brexit again, get an election where they can position themselves as the Brexit party, and get back in; otherwise they would likely have been decimated for either not delivering, or after the no-deal effects are felt. It's pretty gross and overt politics with the sole goal of staying in power, regardless of the cost to the country.

Think if they had figured out a withdrawal agreement it still would have been painful, but they would have muddled through. In case of a no-deal, very real possibility of Scotland leaving the UK, N. Ireland descending back into the Troubles, and possibly Gibraltar going independent as well.

Defence, policing etc is also all heavily entwined with the EU, so there are some fairly significant security concerns as well. Did think it was pretty funny that the UK wanted a EU naval taskforce for the straights of Hormuz; just shows how self centered and out of touch these useless toffs in charge are.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,144
Points
1,060
Primary problem.

Nobody asked the public if they wanted to be so intertwined with the EU.  The public was sold easy trade and travel 46 years ago - kind of like Canada and the US.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,144
Points
1,060
Interesting article from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/08/29/brexit-vibrant-democracy-raw-europe-risks-sliding-authoritarian/
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
Now an online poll with 1m signatures to not suspend Parliament. Very funny , those that chose to ignore the voters now want their opinion.  :rofl:
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
Interesting take on the looming crisis.

https://www.thenation.com/article/boris-johnson-exposes-the-big-lie-of-british-politics/
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,344
Points
1,040
Chris Pook said:
Primary problem.

Nobody asked the public if they wanted to be so intertwined with the EU.  The public was sold easy trade and travel 46 years ago - kind of like Canada and the US.

They had a referendum to join, and they continue to elect members to the European Parliament to march things on. Most of the objections are from people that are fundamentally (intentionally or otherwise) ignorant about how the EU actually works. The things they are objecting to were either proposed or supported by the UK over the decades and passed through the EU parliament.

They had a very narrow margin to leave, but there isn't a unified vision of what it means to actually leave the EU. Some wanted to be out of the regulations, but stay part of the common market (which is not actually possible), others were ok with the common market but didn't want to have free movement, and various other permutations. Some just were angry, and were given a foreign target, which conveniently ignores the enormous dumpster fire of their own Etonian kleptocracy.

The things the various leave factions are saying are completely laughable in how unlikely they are; the EU is not going to give them a favourable position if they leave, they are also not going to be worse off then the UK in a no-deal, and there will have to be a border by default if they leave the common market. They are portraying vulnerabilities as strong barganing positions, and otherwise spouting all kinds of BS to make it an emotional arguement. Logically, pretty evident that even a Brexit with a withdrawal agreement will have significant economic impacts, and a no-deal will be brutal.

There is a lot of needless brinksmanship and suspension of disbelief inolved, and this is the latest chapter in the dysfunctional parliament where everyone is playing chicken and refusing to compromise, but that's not really a good reason to drive the entire bus off a cliff.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,337
Points
1,040
tomahawk6 said:
Interesting take on the looming crisis.

https://www.thenation.com/article/boris-johnson-exposes-the-big-lie-of-british-politics/

Actually T6, that's a pretty crappy article IMHO. The opening statement:

The big lie of British politics is that power in rests in two places; the monarch appoints government ministers and priests of the established church, hands out awards to successful businessmen and famous artists, and introduces laws to the elected Parliament, which has just two powers: to raise taxes and to pass or reject the laws that the monarch—in this case, Queen Elizabeth II—proposes.

That's not a "big lie". Anyone who understands British government knows that the monarch's powers have been very limited for well over a hundred years. There is no "sizable package of powers that are nominally the queen’s".

Queen Victoria was the last monarch to exercise real personal power, but this diminished over the course of her reign. In 1839, she became the last sovereign to keep a prime minister in power against the will of Parliament when the Bedchamber crisis resulted in the retention of Lord Melbourne's administration.[11] By the end of her reign, however, she could do nothing to block the unacceptable (to her) premierships of William Gladstone, although she still exercised power in appointments to the Cabinet, for example in 1886 preventing Gladstone's choice of Hugh Childers as War Secretary in favor of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy#England_and_the_United_Kingdom

It's been equally long as to the monarch proposing laws. Laws have for over a hundred years been formed within the prime minister's cabinet and their respective ministries.

I presume these are recent revelations to Stephen Bush although as a British journalist he ought to have known better. I know that what he's really trying to do is to make a point about prorogation. He just makes it badly. We had our own prorogation crisis in Canada:

A prorogation of parliament took place on December 4, 2008, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper advised Governor General Michaëlle Jean to do so after the opposition Liberal and New Democratic parties formed a coalition with the support of the Bloc Québécois party and threatened to vote non-confidence in the sitting minority government, precipitating a parliamentary dispute. The Governor General, however, did not grant her prime minister's request until after two hours of consultation with various constitutional experts. Upon the end of her tenure as vicereine, Jean revealed to the Canadian Press that the delay was partly to "send a message—and for people to understand that this warranted reflection".[8][9] It was also at the same time said by Peter H. Russell, one of those from whom Jean sought advice, that Canadians ought not regard as an automatic rubber stamp the Governor General's decision to accept Harper's advice concerning prorogation; Russell disclosed that Jean granted the prorogation on two conditions: parliament would reconvene soon and, when it did, the Cabinet would present a proposed budget, a vote on which is a confidence matter.[2] This, Russell said, set a precedent that would prevent future prime ministers from advising the prorogation of parliament "for any length of time for any reason".[10][11] Nelson Wiseman, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, wrote of Harper that "no Prime Minister has so abused the power to prorogue".[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_Canada

With a little bit of research Bush might have gotten onto the line that prorogation as a tool of political power by a prime minister is wrong but instead he has thrown out a bunch of red herrings and flogged a few of his hobby horses which cheapens his argument.

:cheers:
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
346
Points
810
Navy_Pete said:
They had a referendum to join, and they continue to elect members to the European Parliament to march things on. Most of the objections are from people that are fundamentally (intentionally or otherwise) ignorant about how the EU actually works. The things they are objecting to were either proposed or supported by the UK over the decades and passed through the EU parliament.

They had a very narrow margin to leave, but there isn't a unified vision of what it means to actually leave the EU. Some wanted to be out of the regulations, but stay part of the common market (which is not actually possible), others were ok with the common market but didn't want to have free movement, and various other permutations. Some just were angry, and were given a foreign target, which conveniently ignores the enormous dumpster fire of their own Etonian kleptocracy.

The things the various leave factions are saying are completely laughable in how unlikely they are; the EU is not going to give them a favourable position if they leave, they are also not going to be worse off then the UK in a no-deal, and there will have to be a border by default if they leave the common market. They are portraying vulnerabilities as strong barganing positions, and otherwise spouting all kinds of BS to make it an emotional arguement. Logically, pretty evident that even a Brexit with a withdrawal agreement will have significant economic impacts, and a no-deal will be brutal.

There is a lot of needless brinksmanship and suspension of disbelief inolved, and this is the latest chapter in the dysfunctional parliament where everyone is playing chicken and refusing to compromise, but that's not really a good reason to drive the entire bus off a cliff.

Not saying it won't be hard for the first couple years, but long term I believe the UK will do better outside the EU than in it. The problem is they basically have to take a no deal otherwise, they will be taking a worse deal from the EU as they don't want to make a good trade deal with them. Why would the Eurocrats reward them for leaving? They want to discourage the rest of Europe from leaving the 'experiment'.

Once they leave they will be in a position of power for bargaining, as it will hurt Europes economy as well. From there they can negotiate as equals and do what they need to do.

Ultimately though at the end of the day, they had the referendum, and they had the result. Its time for them to leave one way or another, or there was no point in even voting in the first place.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,344
Points
1,040
Yeah, I agree they should get it done, the problem though is that there is a huge gulf on the Leave side as to how that should happen. There are some pretty crazy factions and most of them want things with no grasp on what is even feasible. The withdrawal agreement wasn't great, but think the EU was actually pretty generous, and there is no way they are going to get a better deal. Divorce isn't supposed to be fun, but the no deal route is massively irresponsible, and it's all being manipulated for no better reason than to get reelected.

Curious though how long you think it will take for them to reset and for them to get back to doing better then in the EU.  Posted the link below for the list of EU trade agreements in place, and it's pretty substantial. That's in addition to the open trade with the 500M ish people int he EU. Didn't appreciate how close they were until spending time there, but you can drive between two or three countries in the time people spend on a bad commute here.  The lack of borders and tarriffs makes a massive difference, as there would be more time spent filling in paperwork then travelling, and all that adds to the costs.

Those trade agreements can take years to negotiate and put in place (think the CETA is at 5 or 6). They also had far better negotiating leverage as a healthy, relatively self sufficient EU than a desperate and net importer they will be on their own with a 10th of the population. The US congress has already said it will block any trade agreement with the UK that puts the Good Friday Agreement at risk (which has both Republican and Democrat support), and they are already pushing to open up trading tho their health services, reduce their food quality regulations and all kinds of other things. For everyone else, this is kind of the ideal time to negotiate something pretty one sided.

Finally, they have already bled some financial services, and others will likely bail if they crash out with no deal. Gibraltar was a hub for online gambling hosting, and those are all relocating to Malta. Manufacturers etc are shutting the door. Once those are gone, they aren't coming back, so there will be a combined impact of permanent job losses and rising prices for the consumer due to tarriffs and other import costs.

Hear a lot about the 'Eurocrat' but not really sure what that means or why it's bad to have economists, scientists and other experts contribute to policy on their area of expertise.

Not saying they won't be okay in the long run, but likely will be a Pyrrhic victory. The supply chains for food, manufacturing etc have been developing over decades, and there is just no way to ease out of those in a few months without massive disruption. Seems like an okay idea until you see the scope of what it will affect (literally everything), but the Leave parties sold it as a a walk in the park with only benefits. Politicians are normally full of BS, but this was a particularly galling and obvious lie which may have a generational impact similar to one of the world wars or the great depression.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/trade-policy/trade-agreements/
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,336
Points
1,060
Those impacts are also going to happen on the EU side as well as millions of customers disappear, something the EU can ill afford as well. My guess they EU will let UK suffer for 6 months and then be forced by their own to open negotiations on various small deals, to limit impacts on areas previously serving the UK.
 
Top